Sunday, December 09, 2012

I’ve now seen the sure-to-be Steven Spielberg classic
“Lincoln” twice.And despite criticism
from other academics concerning the film’s passive portrayals of black characters,
I found the film’s dramatic characterization of the 39th Congress’s
debate on President Lincoln’s pushed 13th amendment, riveting.

With repeated references to compromise, the film recounts
how liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats debated the amendment to
abolish slavery along the terms of equality before the law or equality out
right in all things.

The dividing line, the story goes, came down to liberal
Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens’ controversial statement to support the
amendment only because he believed in equality before the law.The decision caused other liberal Republicans
to immediately question Stevens’ decades-long support for full equality and
universal freedom for the nation’s “colored” population.

Stevens’ compromise, in part, allowed for a coalition to
form to pass the amendment, which would go on to be ratified this week nearly
150 years ago - on December 6, 1865.

Significantly, acclaimed Lincoln biographer Doris Kearn
Goodwin has found the film to be largely accurate.

---

Given today’s marriage equality debates pending in the
Supreme Court much can be learned from the debate between “equality before the
law” and “equality in all things” juxtapositions.

While
the Supreme Court is expected to try again at their weekly conference this
Friday, to decide which gay marriage cases they will rule on this term, this
week is the last such meeting before the holiday recess.

It’s been said before and the cases that are options to the
justices to hear are in part based on the series of “civil war amendments” of
which the Lincoln film’s 13th amendment focus is the progenitor.

Hence, it is likely that the justices will be debating the
merits of the same “equality before the law” and “equality in all things”
juxtapositions as evidenced in the 13th amendment debate on the
House floor of the 39th Congress as portrayed in “Lincoln.”

Of course, we know by now the party-line roles have reversed
as a result of FDR’s New Deal, the 1964 realignment of southern Democrats to the
Republican party, among other factors during the tumultuous years of the civil
rights movement in the United States.

While many of the shared values of the liberal Republicans
of 1865 are, perhaps, like unto the values of liberal Democrats of 2012 and the
values of conservative Democrats of 1865 are like unto those of the extreme
conservative Tea Party elements of the Republican Party in 2012, the factions
are essentially the same when it comes to the nation’s centuries long fight
concerning equality before the law.

However, the “equality before the law” and “equality in all
things” juxtaposition debate remains firm.

As the country prepares for the historic Supreme Court term
before us, most would likely agree that this “land of the free” yet
marginalizes certain populations based on the enduring dividing line of the
“equality before the law” and “equality in all things” debate.Sadly, many groups fit this description, but
of imminent significance to the Supreme Court this week are same gender loving
Americans’ legal battles to marry and receive marriage-related benefits.

There are many questions for the justices to consider in
deciding which marriage equality cases to hear and each question has serious
sociopolitical implications.

Just like the 19th century Congressional abolition
debates, the 21st century marriage equality debate centers on
equality.For many, the 14th
amendment has long answered this question for many groups, including African
Americans, women, Latino/a Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans,
Americans with disabilities, and so on.

As Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clearly
states: “No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

However, despite the clarity of the 14th amendment
in stating federal supremacy and “equal protection of the laws,” the debate
rages on and the dividing line is the same.Meanwhile, American citizens hang in the balance.

While many may argue that the Stevens’ 13th
compromise to support equality before the law rather than the full equality that
he had long come to support was a character flaw, nearly 150 years later it
remains a strategic political lesson in how to decide a controversial
“equality” case filled with economic, legal, and for some, moral ramifications
– and that will have huge implications on the nation’s direction.

It is, after all, equality before the law that the marriage
equality cases are all about.

In each case, all that is asked is that equality before the
law- a 19th century debate
long won – be upheld.

To not do so, would be like unto telling Americans that the
18th century Federalists central government argument long won
against the Anti-Federalists small government “states’ rights” argument is also
invalid – and clearly such a decision would disrupt the very fabric of the
nation.

Given the hallmark “Equal Justice Under Law” engraved
marquee on the Supreme Court’s edifice, is it too much to ask that they uphold
an enduring American principle decided long ago?

Clearly equality in all things is long overdue and more than
simply merited, but all that is asked is that equality before the law should
endure.Now that’s an enduring compromise.

Links

About Me

Dr. Ravi Perry holds a B.A. from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. from Brown University, both in political science.
Perry is a young scholar with an evolving and prolific take on issues facing African-Americans in the United States. With specializations in Black politics, minority representation, and urban politics, he concentrates his research, oratory, and activism in areas such as the new generation of civil rights debates, public policy, and urban politics public service delivery to persons of color.
Dr. Perry is currently an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Stennis Scholar for Municipal Governance at Mississippi State University. His activism, commentary and oratory has been featured in media outlets across the country.